Page 11 of 14 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
12
13
... LastLast
  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    Well if you've got something to contribute, I think we'd all be better for hearing it.
    Eh, it's pointless really. Discussions when it comes to something as complicated as economics are pointless. People here seem to have their opinions and aren't really listening to what the other person says, but are just out to prove the other person wrong.

    But here's my tidbit as far as the economic discussion is concerned:

    Keynes was mostly right about domestic spending and growth. In fact, the 1940s basically showed that more than anything else. He was once even quoted to say that his ideas weren't politically feasable, except in war time. Only during WW2 were his ideas ever realized. All the semi-socialistic practices of the 1960s and 1970s weren't really Keynesian at all.

    The problem with Keynesian economics is the spread of globalization. You see, under Keynesian theory, the government had oversight and could "inject" capital into weak sectors that should be upheld. You can't do this with a globalized economy. There is no way to effectivly regulate other countries, and therefore the government has little power. We used to, but that was only because our economy was HUGE compared to others, and a lot of nations did not want to trade with the USSR. Now it's a whole different animal.

    The effect has been this: Government capital injection into private industry does not have the effect that it used to have. Back in the 1940s, when a dollar was spent here in the US by the government, it would circulate through industries again and again and again, and it would stay in this country. With globalization and the way that money basically travels through finance companies (who often leverage a dollar seven different ways overseas), and our lack of true exports, government spending does not have near the effect that it used to.

    I could go on and on about Milton Friedman as well, but he's seen as some right-winger when that's really not the case. He had some VERY socialistic ideas that were mixed in to a free market system. I personally think his sytem would work fairly well if followed as he said, but the right wing only wants to take the free-market part, and not the not the minimum income guarenteed by his ideas.

    But whatever, economists aren't actually listened to. They just peel the ideas off of us that match their pre-determined mindset.

  2. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by grimsanta View Post
    Eh, it's pointless really. Discussions when it comes to something as complicated as economics are pointless. People here seem to have their opinions and aren't really listening to what the other person says, but are just out to prove the other person wrong.

    But here's my tidbit as far as the economic discussion is concerned:

    Keynes was mostly right about domestic spending and growth. In fact, the 1940s basically showed that more than anything else. He was once even quoted to say that his ideas weren't politically feasable, except in war time. Only during WW2 were his ideas ever realized. All the semi-socialistic practices of the 1960s and 1970s weren't really Keynesian at all.

    The problem with Keynesian economics is the spread of globalization. You see, under Keynesian theory, the government had oversight and could "inject" capital into weak sectors that should be upheld. You can't do this with a globalized economy. There is no way to effectivly regulate other countries, and therefore the government has little power. We used to, but that was only because our economy was HUGE compared to others, and a lot of nations did not want to trade with the USSR. Now it's a whole different animal.

    The effect has been this: Government capital injection into private industry does not have the effect that it used to have. Back in the 1940s, when a dollar was spent here in the US by the government, it would circulate through industries again and again and again, and it would stay in this country. With globalization and the way that money basically travels through finance companies (who often leverage a dollar seven different ways overseas), and our lack of true exports, government spending does not have near the effect that it used to.

    I could go on and on about Milton Friedman as well, but he's seen as some right-winger when that's really not the case. He had some VERY socialistic ideas that were mixed in to a free market system. I personally think his sytem would work fairly well if followed as he said, but the right wing only wants to take the free-market part, and not the not the minimum income guaranteed by his ideas.

    But whatever, economists aren't actually listened to. They just peel the ideas off of us that match their pre-determined mindset.
    That's a good point about Friedman. I've always agreed with him on the negative income tax idea, although for him it was a step towards eradication of that type of government intervention. That said, most of our old great thinkers and leaders end up being turned into something they weren't by people who want to attach them to their own ideas. I can't tell you how many times I've heard FDR called a Keynesian because of the New Deal, which is completely divorced from reality.

    I think that your point about government spending not being what it used to is certainly correct, but I think that is a sign that we need to seriously look at capital injection AND some measures of protectionism to keep those dollars here. It's a tight rope to walk though.

    What is your opinion on Austrian economics?

  3. #203
    What do I think about Austrian economics? Meh, I think it's a bunch of crap that's been debunked a thousand different ways by people on both the right and the left and the only people who actually believe it are Ron Paul fanatics and old men who refuse to accept that their logic is flawed.

    Case in point, currency, which is probably the biggest part of their theory, and it's just plain wrong. We'll never ever go back to a non-fiat currency because it would take our nations ability away to manipulate our own currency! That's a HUGE point. If we are stuck on say, gold, then our entire economy is at the whim of every other country's use of gold. AND they get to manipulate their currency at the same time. It puts any country who would use the gold standard at a competitive disadvantage. So even if it were a good idea for everyone to be on gold, we'll never go back to it. Why would a country give up monetary souvernty on purpose?

    But non-fiat currencies are bad ideas anyways. Take gold again, for example. When value is created in an economy, and the quantity of a currency stays the same, then that means the value of the currency most go up. So, when an economy becomes more valuable, gold becomes more valueable. The problem here, is that creates a huge incentive to just hang onto your money and not spend it. Because when money deflates, it is essentially an investment of itself!

    The other problem here is what happens when a market becomes speculative under gold. When an economic crash happens with gold, then the price of gold falls dramatically. If gold is the currency everyone is using, than everyone in the nation would suddenly have a lot less money. This happens under all types of currencies, but it is very dramatic in non-fiat currencies. The ability to print money without devaluing a currency is incredibly important because it enables a 3rd party (like the fed) to put more money into an expanding economy without driving up inflation rates.

    And for some reason, the Austrians think that non-fiat currency would be a good thing. All it does is drive wealth upward and create a disadvantage for people who would otherwise invest. And the only reason you would invest would be becaue you think the economy might shrink, which is a backwards system.

  4. #204
    Quote Originally Posted by grimsanta View Post
    As someone who just received a masters in economics, this thread makes me lol. Both the liberals and conservatives on this thread are trying to expand on ideas that they know nothing about, and it's just sad. You all act like your way is 100% right and the other person is wrong wrong wrong.
    Well I'm not too far away from my master either. And I don't act like I'm 100% right on everything. But stimulus in the form of digging ditches - or QE when there already is inflation - is just not smart. Keynes was a brilliant guy, but he just died too early to be able to complete his theories. Now they're a godsend for politicians who want a reason to spend my money on buying votes or buying special interest favors.

    That's why I for example didn't even bother to try and prove that private market healthcare is superior than singlepayer in this thread - I only gave some of the major reasons why the current US healthcare is what it is.


    I've studied economics for 6.5 years, and I realize that while I'm much more on the left in my opinions, there's somebody out there on the far right who has studied these things for 40 more years than I have. And they might be right or wrong.
    If it's milton friedman, I would agree with him on almost anything.

    P.S. If you think WW2 was an economic boost for the US (i.e. Wars create prosperity), I really have to question your Master's degree.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-26 at 12:07 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post

    I think that your point about government spending not being what it used to is certainly correct, but I think that is a sign that we need to seriously look at capital injection AND some measures of protectionism to keep those dollars here. It's a tight rope to walk though.
    Friedman would tell you that protectionism is a failed idea. Friedman also started out as a Keynesian but then became a Laissez-faire economist and a very libertarian person all in all.

    But non-fiat currencies are bad ideas anyways. Take gold again, for example. When value is created in an economy, and the quantity of a currency stays the same, then that means the value of the currency most go up. So, when an economy becomes more valuable, gold becomes more valueable. The problem here, is that creates a huge incentive to just hang onto your money and not spend it. Because when money deflates, it is essentially an investment of itself!
    Deflation is not bad by default, and inflating a currency to counter deflation caused by increased productivity is just insane. The US had some of the most prosperous times back in late 19th century during significant deflation caused by increased production.

    All deflation does is encourage saving, which provides more capital to be lent out for investments. And I'm not saying there should be a gold standard, but governemnts throughout history have shown that they cannot be trusted with a printing press without any true restraints.

    Also NineSpine - what's the point in answering your post when you just make absolute claims and provide no evidence? You then mix it with some tinfoil hattery. And I acknowledged like ten posts ago that Austrian economics in itself only provides tools to understand macroeconomics. You need more than that to be an economist. However, the arguments they derive from certain self-evident truths are always a great tool to have. It's like a check system to see if your idea is totally out-of-wack or plausible.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2011-11-26 at 12:21 AM.

  5. #205
    Nothing you say is a "self-evident truth". That's a not-so-clever way of dodging having to provide any actual evidence. You aren't God, so you don't get to declare your assertions as above the need for evidence.

    I showed you evidence that the United States has some of the worst health statistics amongst first-world nations. Your response? Nothing. Using your logic, the least socialized healthcare system in the first world should have the best results, but it doesn't. The results are downright embarrassing.

    The cheapest U.S. state is Utah, which is STILL more expensive than most countries with socialized medicine, as seen from these two charts:
    http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...?ind=596&cat=5
    http://www.kff.org/insurance/snapshot/OECD042111.cfm

    Well, this must mean that there is more healthcare competition in the cheaper areas than the more expensive areas, right? Wrong again. New York is one of the largest states by population, and has a massive number of insurers. It also is incredibly deregulated, with huge numbers of hospitals due to it's population density. Despite this, it has some of the highest healthcare spending on the planet. California, on the other hand, is one of the most highly regulated states and has some of the cheapest costs in the country, despite also being a state with extremely high incomes which SHOULD drive up costs but don't seem to.

    Flatly: There is no evidence that your assertions are true. All of the evidence runs counter to what you say.

  6. #206
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Nothing you say is a "self-evident truth". That's a not-so-clever way of dodging having to provide any actual evidence. You aren't God, so you don't get to declare your assertions as above the need for evidence.
    The austrian arguments are not necessarily self evident truths in themselves, but rather are built upon them. For example: A circle has no corners. From that self-evident truth you can then derive all sorts of other arguments.

    I showed you evidence that the United States has some of the worst health statistics amongst first-world nations. Your response? Nothing. Using your logic, the least socialized healthcare system in the first world should have the best results, but it doesn't. The results are downright embarrassing.

    The cheapest U.S. state is Utah, which is STILL more expensive than most countries with socialized medicine, as seen from these two charts:
    http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...?ind=596&cat=5
    This is just pathetic of you. I have many times said that the US healthcare system is fucked up. And I have numerous times given you examples of how government (both federal and state) regulation and legislation increases the costs. And I'm not letting the big pharma/insurance/healthcare providers off the hook either - most of these price increasing regulations are the result of their lobbying. So I have never claimed that the current US system is good, it was the best 40 years back though. I mean, can you build a more massive strawman than what you just built?

    Flatly: There is no evidence that your assertions are true. All of the evidence runs counter to what you say.
    I'm afraid this is not the case. You are simply not counting all factors that affect the health care costs in New York for example. What is your explaination for the varying prices per state then? As far as I'm aware, everything is bloody expensive in NY.

    But the simply example that Medicaid/Medicare compensates doctors depending on how many procedures they perform instead of problems solved/attemped to solve - is one indisputable factor in raising healthcare costs. It causes doctors to perform more procedures than necessary, which means that the cost of healthcare goes up. This affects both the cost of medicare/medicaid and the private market.

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-26 at 02:54 PM ----------

    I just did a quick search and apparently, as suspected, NY has ridiculous mandated coverages for employer healthcare, such as chiropractic services, psychiatry and other services that you probably want to insure yourself against separately (or take no insurance at all).

    Their state Health Department controlled hospitals and nursing homes cost more than in any other state in the nation due to massive overcapacity. I need to note though that I don't know yet to what extent the NY health dept. is in charge of how many hospitals are built or how they are ran - so it's not certain all blame can be placed on their health dept.
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2011-11-26 at 02:56 PM.

  7. #207
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The austrian arguments are not necessarily self evident truths in themselves, but rather are built upon them. For example: A circle has no corners. From that self-evident truth you can then derive all sorts of other arguments.

    This is just pathetic of you. I have many times said that the US healthcare system is fucked up. And I have numerous times given you examples of how government (both federal and state) regulation and legislation increases the costs. And I'm not letting the big pharma/insurance/healthcare providers off the hook either - most of these price increasing regulations are the result of their lobbying. So I have never claimed that the current US system is good, it was the best 40 years back though. I mean, can you build a more massive strawman than what you just built?

    I'm afraid this is not the case. You are simply not counting all factors that affect the health care costs in New York for example. What is your explaination for the varying prices per state then? As far as I'm aware, everything is bloody expensive in NY.

    But the simply example that Medicaid/Medicare compensates doctors depending on how many procedures they perform instead of problems solved/attemped to solve - is one indisputable factor in raising healthcare costs. It causes doctors to perform more procedures than necessary, which means that the cost of healthcare goes up. This affects both the cost of medicare/medicaid and the private market.
    You have not given me a single example of anything. You have given me assertions which I have provided statistics to the contrary of. Your assertions do not match the reality, and you utterly refuse to back your assertions up with evidence.

    Everything is bloody expensive in New York... and California... but their healthcare costs vary wildly. New York also has incredible population density though, resulting in an abnormal level of healthcare competition. The prices remain insane. The difference in cost per state is largely due to this:

    http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=112688705

    If you compare that to the chart I posted before, you'll see a rough correlation. States with more uninsured people tend to *surprise surprise* have cheaper costs per capita. If you look at the actual average premiums, you'll find that they do NOT vary much by state, because now you are only counting people on healthcare:

    http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...1&cat=5&sub=67

    Medicare's wastefulness when it comes to unnecessary procedures is certainly well documented, but blaming that for the rise in the cost of private health insurance is illogical, and you need to show DATA if you want to blame that for the rise in costs overall. You can't just assert it and be done.

    The primary reason for the high costs is the institution of private insurance itself, which causes massive amounts of paperwork and red tape for doctors to go through, and is only based on making as much money as possible. Since health insurance does NOT respond to normal supply/demand curves, the entire system becomes warped as a result. My girlfriend used to be a receptionist in a doctor's office. There were numerous people there who wouldn't have to be if not for sorting through piles and piles and piles of private health insurance forms. It's insane.

    http://philebersole.wordpress.com/20...lth-care-cost/

  8. #208
    I edited my post with what is considered some of the biggest reasons for higher costs in NYC.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    I edited my post with what is considered some of the biggest reasons for higher costs in NYC.
    Yes and that's why New York premiums are $2000 more than Utah... but when you are talking about numbers in the 5 figure range, $2000 isn't the problem. It's a joke. The costs are relatively uniform across the country, and insanely expensive in even the cheapest states.

    Furthermore, let's look at Medicare. The average cost per enrollee is $7439:
    http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...=6&rgn=6&rgn=1

    Now let's look at premium costs for a single person, which is $4940:
    http://www.statehealthfacts.org/comp...0&cat=5&sub=67

    Despite the VAST, VAST, VAST majority of healthcare spending falling in the later years of life, when Medicare is active, the cost of Medicare per person is only 50% higher than the average cost of private health insurance for a single person. Something is deeply, deeply wrong.

  10. #210
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    Something is deeply, deeply wrong.
    Yes, and I just showed most of the things that are "deeply, deeply wrong". There are others which I can't come up with at present. Most of them are the result of do-gooder politicians who think their helping, corrupt politicians as well as special interest groupds/lobbyists who are looking to make a buck at the publics expense through government influence.

  11. #211
    Because Demacrats dont do the exact same thing when republicans propose something

  12. #212
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Yes, and I just showed most of the things that are "deeply, deeply wrong". There are others which I can't come up with at present. Most of them are the result of do-gooder politicians who think their helping, corrupt politicians as well as special interest groupds/lobbyists who are looking to make a buck at the publics expense through government influence.
    All you've done is made assertions, which I've batted down with actual evidence. How can you not see how silly you look right now?

  13. #213
    Quote Originally Posted by NineSpine View Post
    All you've done is made assertions, which I've batted down with actual evidence. How can you not see how silly you look right now?
    Except you haven't.

    All of the arguments for why costs are higher are correct, but how much they increase costs is another question. And these are not the only reasons that increase costs, but I can't think of any other right now.

    But I guess in your worldview restricting insurance companies from competing over state-borders does not reduce competition and thus increase prices.
    I guess limiting the universities where one can study medicine (and qualify for a license later) does not increase the wages of US doctors.
    I guess giving excisting healthcare centers the power to prevent new entrants from entering the market does not decrease competition and thus increase prices?
    I guess putting mandates on employer healthcare insurance that forces them to cover costs for miscellaneous treatments such as massage, chiropractice or psychiatry does not increase the cost of insurance?
    I guess overregulating what the nurses can do, so that they can't for example deliver babies, does not increase the cost of healthcare?
    I guess Medicare/Medicaid compensating doctors per procedure instead of problem solved does not increase the cost of healthcare?

    All you bring up are some irrelevant arguments about how healthcare costs are the same regardless of state. You then suddenly changed and said that healthcare costs do differ, but they differ in the wrong ways. This is not relevant and I even showed you that NY had high costs because of overly broad mandates on insurance and overcapacity of hospitals.


    Let me ask you: If my reasons are not increasing the cost of healthcare in the US - What is?
    Last edited by Diurdi; 2011-11-27 at 02:24 PM.

  14. #214
    The Lightbringer Yirrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    3,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Let me ask you: If my reasons are not increasing the cost of healthcare in the US - What is?
    The fact that the US system is neither fish nor fowl. If it was purely a private system, it would be cheaper (but ONLY for the government and those lucky few who never needed it, for the "average Joe/Jane" it would be a financial disaster the moment they needed help that wasn't covered fully by their insurance...provided they could even afford insurance). If it was a purely public system, it would be cheaper (slightly so for the government, substantially so for your "average Joe/Jane").

    What you actually have is a bureaucratic mess that is constantly being tweaked, and serve neither the intrests of the public nor those of the government (those two should be the same, but in the US, it seems that is not to be. Won't go into that now). What it DOES is ensure that the insurance companies get filthy rich. Solution? -Either let it limp along, growing ever worse, or rip the whole thing out and start over (won't happen, I know).

    ---------- Post added 2011-11-27 at 04:23 PM ----------

    Had to reply specifically to some of your claims (the glaringly incomplete ones) as it seems you are somewhat "misinformed" -I'll take the liberty to label your claims for ease of reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    1) I guess limiting the universities where one can study medicine (and qualify for a license later) does not increase the wages of US doctors.

    2) I guess putting mandates on employer healthcare insurance that forces them to cover costs for miscellaneous treatments such as massage, chiropractice or psychiatry does not increase the cost of insurance?

    3) I guess overregulating what the nurses can do, so that they can't for example deliver babies, does not increase the cost of healthcare?

    4)I guess Medicare/Medicaid compensating doctors per procedure instead of problem solved does not increase the cost of healthcare?
    1) Medical training requires specialized facillities where the students can learn procedures, use relevant equipment and meet actual patients, it also requires highly trained lecturers capable of transfering the vital information you need to become a GP, let alone a specialists. These are simply not avaliable in a great abundance. Of course it would be great if they were avaliable in more localities, but that would take a lot of financial investments. In addition, it takes years for a medical school to build a reputation that will draw the students they want.

    2) Chiropracty is vital in returning a injured employee to work, especially in occupations where you are suceptible to injury of the spine and surrounding musculature. Psychological councelling and psychiatry is also vital to several occupations, denying people this or forcing them to cover it themselves could lead to a lot more people ending up on disabillity welfare...or in the worst cases, result in "undetonated bombs" walking around, trying to do a job that they are not psychologically fit for at the time. Denying people treatments such as this would be irresponsible at best, borderline criminal at worst, and would certainly open the way to very expensive lawsuits.

    3) Obstetrician work is HIGHLY specialiced work, work that requires expertise to an equal degree as any other medical work. You may claim that it would be fine for a nurse lacking training to assist in this, but if the doctor was called away, or an emergency arose without the precense of someone capable of recognise it as such, could lead to disaster...with expensive follow-up lawsuits. Once again, anyone doing obstetrician work needs training in it, without doubt.

    4) Seriously...pay them per "problem solved"? That would simply lead to most deciding to avoid the cases that could be chronic, in favour of easily "fixed" problems. Your suggestion is a recipe for disaster.
    Want ACTA? No? Say NO to TTIP! Want GMO's? No? Say NO to TTIP! Want your country controlled by US buisness interests? No? Say NO to TTIP!

  15. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by Yirrah View Post
    What you actually have is a bureaucratic mess that is constantly being tweaked, and serve neither the intrests of the public nor those of the government
    Oh it's in the interest of those in the government. But not the general population though. The government and the special interest groups are doing good.

    1) Medical training requires specialized facillities where the students can learn procedures
    The amount of doctors are being artificially restricted at this level. It's not about ensuring that the people who come out of the institutions are well qualified, it's that the current doctors union does not want more people as it keeps their wages high. You will find similar trends in almost any line of work around the world.

    Look, here are the facts: It's very profitable to be a doctor in the US. Thus alot of people want to learn and practice medicine. Because of this, the few medical schools that are "approved" have incredibly high tuition fees. This would in any normal market circumstance mean that existing or new universities would start to teach medicine. The following is a very good article, albeit from 2005, discussing the reasons for a shortage of physicians. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...shortage_x.htm

    2) Chiropracty is vital in returning a injured employee to work...
    Ok, you miss the point. It's not what is important and what isn't. The problem is what should be mandated to the employee medical insurances for all workers. You then, depending on where you work, completement the existing insurances with additional services.

    The less people pay out of pocket, the higher the costs go because people who aren't really sick are going to use more of these services without comparing prices. The logic of health insurance is to protect yourself from high-cost low-risk events that you cannot prepare for financially. Not low-cost or predictable events. When you force these overly broad insurances on employees, the costs go up as the employees will not compare prices of any medical services at all anymore.

    3) Obstetrician work is HIGHLY specialiced work...
    Studies have found that it's not any safer to have births with a doctor than with a nurse. Furthermore the whole of Europe pretty much utilizes nurses to deliver babies.

    4) Seriously...pay them per "problem solved"? That would simply lead to most deciding to avoid the cases that could be chronic, in favour of easily "fixed" problems. Your suggestion is a recipe for disaster.
    Now you're just reading too much into it. Ofcourse if it takes tens of hours to do one patient the fee is going to be different from a quick case. The problem is though that right now they only get compensated based on different procedures, regardless if these procedures are actually necessary.

    You somehow seem to think that society has endless resources to spend on healthcare - it doesn't. You have to be effective.

  16. #216
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Except you haven't.

    All of the arguments for why costs are higher are correct, but how much they increase costs is another question. And these are not the only reasons that increase costs, but I can't think of any other right now.

    But I guess in your worldview restricting insurance companies from competing over state-borders does not reduce competition and thus increase prices.
    You have not provided any evidence of your claim. What I can say that is that since states with large numbers of private insurers and states with small numbers of private insurers do NOT seem to follow any pattern of cost, then your assertion does not agree with the facts. You can't just keep repeating yourself. Eventually, you either need to provide your own evidence, or explain why the evidence provided doesn't agree with you

    I can also tell you that the reason insurers are separated by state is that each state has the right to govern itself. If you allowed the purchase of healthcare over state lines, healthcare companies would simply set up in the state with the most favorable regulations. States would race to the bottom, including in terms of allowing insurance companies to get away with lawbreaking or mistreating their clients. Do you think insurers would set up in a state with a tough DA that worked to protect customers? Get real.

    I guess limiting the universities where one can study medicine (and qualify for a license later) does not increase the wages of US doctors.
    I prefer that to mail order doctors, or unqualified people practicing medicine. We have enough examples of what happens in third world countries with bogus doctors to know that this is not a viable solution for a first world country. Your argument is essentially "If we reduce the quality of available healthcare dramatically, we will reduce the cost of healthcare!"

    I guess giving excisting healthcare centers the power to prevent new entrants from entering the market does not decrease competition and thus increase prices?
    Any evidence?

    I guess putting mandates on employer healthcare insurance that forces them to cover costs for miscellaneous treatments such as massage, chiropractice or psychiatry does not increase the cost of insurance?
    Still no evidence, I see. The states that do not do this also have prices through the roof, so citing this as the problem is nonsensical.

    I guess overregulating what the nurses can do, so that they can't for example deliver babies, does not increase the cost of healthcare?
    Evidence? Anywhere? Nope. Seriously, this assertion is complete bullshit. Nevada has zero laws regarding who can deliver a baby. New York has a separate licensing for midwifery, which any nurse is free to obtain. The only regulation is that nurses who want to deliver babies have to get certified before they can perform that service as a professional.

    I guess Medicare/Medicaid compensating doctors per procedure instead of problem solved does not increase the cost of healthcare?
    I already addressed this. You can keep pretending that I didn't, but I did. Medicare costs are very, very reasonable when compared to private healthcare costs. If the problem you are talking about was so pervasive and massive, that wouldn't be true.

    All you bring up are some irrelevant arguments about how healthcare costs are the same regardless of state. You then suddenly changed and said that healthcare costs do differ, but they differ in the wrong ways. This is not relevant and I even showed you that NY had high costs because of overly broad mandates on insurance and overcapacity of hospitals.
    You didn't SHOW anything. You made assertions that you continue to refuse to post evidence for.

    Let me ask you: If my reasons are not increasing the cost of healthcare in the US - What is?[/QUOTE]

    I already posted a detailed chart showing how administrative costs, specifically paperwork due to private health insurance, causes a massive increase in cost.

    On top of that, health insurance doesn't obey any normal laws of supply and demand. It is in the interest of the insurer to rip you off, and typically it is too late to make a difference when this happens. You are talking about a service that either kills you or destroys your life when it fails. That can't obey normal supply and demand structure. It's in the interest of the insurance company for you to DIE QUICKLY. That's a perverse incentive structure. They want you to pay, and then when you are sick they want to kick you off by any means necessary, or they want to deny you service so that you die. It is often far cheaper to let someone die and settle with the family than to care for that person in the first place. The entire industry is built on rescission, the practice of finding paperwork errors as excuses to boot people off once they get sick. The profit motive is WHY the costs are so high. The goal of these companies is not to provide a good service, because it is more profitable to milk people for money and then let them die. The result of this is that you have massive, massive amounts of paperwork and hoops for doctors to go through in order to provide care. Doctors can't simply prescribe what they think is the best option. They have to CONSTANTLY consort with the insurance company and listen to their recommendations. The doctor cannot act autonomously. He is at the mercy of what the healthcare providers want. He has to run his practice according to them. It's a completely broken system that DOES NOT WORK.

  17. #217
    The Lightbringer Yirrah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Where the Zebras roam!
    Posts
    3,587
    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Oh it's in the interest of those in the government. But not the general population though. The government and the special interest groups are doing good.
    Yeah, I've heard that tired old libertarian tune before.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The amount of doctors are being artificially restricted at this level. It's not about ensuring that the people who come out of the institutions are well qualified, it's that the current doctors union does not want more people as it keeps their wages high. You will find similar trends in almost any line of work around the world.
    Bold accusation. Can you prove that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Look, here are the facts: It's very profitable to be a doctor in the US. Thus alot of people want to learn and practice medicine. Because of this, the few medical schools that are "approved" have incredibly high tuition fees. This would in any normal market circumstance mean that existing or new universities would start to teach medicine. The following is a very good article, albeit from 2005, discussing the reasons for a shortage of physicians. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...shortage_x.htm
    Yes, I agree that the article is very interesting. Among other, it points toward a reason for the shortage being "artificial shortage" caused by doctors treating fewer and fewer patients, because they are migrating to treat the affluent. Seems to me what's needed is some actual government control where it matters.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Ok, you miss the point. It's not what is important and what isn't. The problem is what should be mandated to the employee medical insurances for all workers. You then, depending on where you work, completement the existing insurances with additional services.
    Which would make insurances a LOT more expensive for those who need additional coverage, instead of a little more expensive for everyone.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    The less people pay out of pocket, the higher the costs go because people who aren't really sick are going to use more of these services without comparing prices. The logic of health insurance is to protect yourself from high-cost low-risk events that you cannot prepare for financially. Not low-cost or predictable events. When you force these overly broad insurances on employees, the costs go up as the employees will not compare prices of any medical services at all anymore.
    As I have shown before, the total expense for society as a whole go down when people visit the doctors more often. Furthermore, you should REALLY get your nose out of the financial ledgers and start looking at the human cost of bottom-line policies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Studies have found that it's not any safer to have births with a doctor than with a nurse. Furthermore the whole of Europe pretty much utilizes nurses to deliver babies.
    1. Post study. 2. Post proof.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    Now you're just reading too much into it. Ofcourse if it takes tens of hours to do one patient the fee is going to be different from a quick case. The problem is though that right now they only get compensated based on different procedures, regardless if these procedures are actually necessary.
    Doctors, like most people, chose what earns them the most money. With your system, "easy, quick fixes" become the most profitable. The current system is not good either, if it leads to unneccessary procedures, but it will at least not marginalize the chronically ill, or cases with a lower probabillity of recovery.

    Quote Originally Posted by Diurdi View Post
    You somehow seem to think that society has endless resources to spend on healthcare - it doesn't. You have to be effective.
    The funds are there and availiable, but they are currently misplaced and misused. Additionally, you fail entirely to consider the cost to the individual when economic concerns is allowed to overrule the best interest of the individual and society. Here is a hint: Economy exists to serve humanity, humanity does not exist to serve economy.
    Want ACTA? No? Say NO to TTIP! Want GMO's? No? Say NO to TTIP! Want your country controlled by US buisness interests? No? Say NO to TTIP!

  18. #218
    I will vote for whichever candidate did not launch his political career from the living room of a domestic terrorist. I will also vote for the candidate who did not knowingly hire self-avowed communists to work in his administration, and sit and listed to Rev Wright for 22 years.

  19. #219
    Quote Originally Posted by Yngwie View Post
    I will vote for whichever candidate did not launch his political career from the living room of a domestic terrorist.
    Last I checked, Ayers never went to jail or had charges of terrorism successfully pressed against him in a court of law.

    I will also vote for the candidate who did not knowingly hire self-avowed communists to work in his administration,
    Name them. I'd like to know which members of the administration aren't simply Milquetoast Democrats.

    and sit and listed to Rev Wright for 22 years.
    funny thing is, there's never been any video of Obama having sat through any of those controversial sermons. The main argument for Obama was that he never really attended that church often and wasn't quite aware of Wright's extremism. The Obama campaign couldn't argue that though since they were using his religiousness as a selling point to moderates and evangelical voters.

    Do note, he's hardly been to church at all since he became president. The man simply isn't that regular an attendee.

  20. #220
    The Hedgehog Elementium's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    MA, USA.
    Posts
    12,765
    We're done anyway as far as i see it..

    hell this is an article from a british newspaper about one mans opinion and republicans are overreacting and being over sensitive.. They almost act like a child who pretends to be tough until you pinch him then he throws a tantrum. Democrats are no better.. once the tantrum starts they bend over just to make the crying stop. Even supporters on each side are so drowned in their parties views they can't make intelligent decisions on their own anymore.

    Worst of all is they don't even realize that they don't have a party anymore.. every decision made by politicians is strictly based on what corporations want them to vote for. The interest in the american people is gone, once the country is at it's limit they'll just take their gold plated private jets and leave for somewhere else.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •